1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to computer networks and more particularly to selecting a traffic engineering (TE) label switched path (LSP) from a plurality of TE-LSPs that span multiple domains of a computer network.
2. Background Information
A computer network is a geographically distributed collection of nodes interconnected by communication links and segments for transporting data between end nodes, such as personal computers and workstations. Many types of networks are available, with the types ranging from local area networks (LANs) to wide area networks (WANs). LANs typically connect the nodes over dedicated private communications links located in the same general physical location, such as a building or campus. WANs, on the other hand, typically connect geographically dispersed nodes over long-distance communications links, such as common carrier telephone lines, optical lightpaths, synchronous optical networks (SONET), or synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) links. The Internet is an example of a WAN that connects disparate networks throughout the world, providing global communication between nodes on various networks. The nodes typically communicate over the network by exchanging discrete frames or packets of data according to predefined protocols, such as the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). In this context, a protocol consists of a set of rules defining how the nodes interact with each other. Computer networks may be further interconnected by an intermediate network node, such as a router, to extend the effective “size” of each network.
Since management of interconnected computer networks can prove burdensome, smaller groups of computer networks may be maintained as routing domains or autonomous systems. The networks within an autonomous system (AS) are typically coupled together by conventional “intradomain” routers configured to execute intradomain routing protocols, and are generally subject to a common authority. To improve routing scalability, a service provider (e.g., an ISP) may divide an AS into multiple “areas.” It may be desirable, however, to increase the number of nodes capable of exchanging data; in this case, interdomain routers executing interdomain routing protocols are used to inter-connect nodes of the various ASes. Moreover, it may be desirable to interconnect various ASes that are operated under different administrative domains. As used herein, an AS or an area is generally referred to as a “domain,” and a router that interconnects different domains together is generally referred to as a “border router.”
An example of an interdomain routing protocol is the Border Gateway Protocol version 4 (BGP), which performs routing between domains (ASes) by exchanging routing and reachability information among neighboring interdomain routers of the systems. An adjacency is a relationship formed between selected neighboring (peer) routers for the purpose of exchanging routing information messages and abstracting the network topology. The routing information exchanged by BGP peer routers typically includes destination address prefixes, i.e., the portions of destination addresses used by the routing protocol to render routing (“next hop”) decisions. Examples of such destination addresses include IP version 4 (IPv4) and version 6 (IPv6) addresses. BGP generally operates over a reliable transport protocol, such as TCP, to establish a TCP connection/session. The BGP protocol is well known and generally described in Request for Comments (RFC) 1771, entitled A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGPx-4), published March 1995.
Examples of an intradomain routing protocol, or an interior gateway protocol (IGP), are the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol and the Intermediate-System-to-Intermediate-System (ISIS) routing protocol. The OSPF and ISIS protocols are based on link-state technology and, therefore, are commonly referred to as link-state routing protocols. Link-state protocols define the manner with which routing information and network-topology information are exchanged and processed in a domain. This information is generally directed to an intradomain router's local state (e.g., the router's usable interfaces and reachable neighbors or adjacencies). The OSPF protocol is described in RFC 2328, entitled OSPF Version 2, dated April 1998 and the ISIS protocol used in the context of IP is described in RFC 1195, entitled Use of OSI ISIS for routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments, dated December 1990, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
An intermediate network node often stores its routing information in a routing table maintained and managed by a routing information base (RIB). The routing table is a searchable data structure in which network addresses are mapped to their associated routing information. However, those skilled in the art will understand that the routing table need not be organized as a table, and alternatively may be another type of searchable data structure. Although the intermediate network node's routing table may be configured with a predetermined set of routing information, the node also may dynamically acquire (“learn”) network routing information as it sends and receives data packets. When a packet is received at the intermediate network node, the packet's destination address may be used to identify a routing table entry containing routing information associated with the received packet. Among other things, the packet's routing information indicates the packet's next-hop address.
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering has been developed to meet data networking requirements such as guaranteed available bandwidth or fast restoration. MPLS Traffic Engineering exploits modern label switching techniques to build guaranteed bandwidth end-to-end tunnels through an IP/MPLS network of label switched routers (LSRs). These tunnels are a type of label switched path (LSP) and thus are generally referred to as MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs. Examples of MPLS TE can be found in RFC 3209, entitled RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels dated December 2001, RFC 3784 entitled Intermediate-System-to-Intermediate-System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE) dated June 2004, and RFC 3630, entitled Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2 dated September 2003, the contents of all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Establishment of an MPLS TE-LSP from a head-end LSR to a tail-end LSR involves computation of a path through a network of LSRs. Optimally, the computed path is the “shortest” path, as measured in some metric, that satisfies all relevant LSP Traffic Engineering constraints such as e.g., required bandwidth, availability of backup bypass tunnels for each link and node included in the path, etc. Path computation can either be performed by the head-end LSR or by some other entity operating as a path computation element (PCE). The head-end LSR (or a PCE) exploits its knowledge of network topology and resources available on each link to perform the path computation according to the LSP Traffic Engineering constraints. Various path computation methodologies are available including CSPF (constrained shortest path first). MPLS TE-LSPs can be configured within a single domain, e.g., area, level, or AS, or may also span multiple domains, e.g., areas, levels, or ASes.
One difficulty that arises in crossing domain boundaries is that path computation at the head-end LSR requires knowledge of network topology and resources across the entire network between the head-end and the tail-end LSRs. Yet service providers typically do not share this information with each other across domain borders. In particular, network topology and resource information do not generally flow across area boundaries even though a single service provider may operate all the areas or levels. Neither the head-end LSR nor any single PCE will have sufficient knowledge to compute a path. Because of this, MPLS Traffic Engineering path computation techniques are required to compute inter-domain TE-LSPs.
The use of PCEs has been adapted to create a distributed PCE architecture, in order to extend MPLS TE-LSPs across domain boundaries. An example of such a distributed architecture is described in commonly-owned copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/767,574, entitled COMPUTING INTER-AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM MPLS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING LSP PATHS, filed by Vasseur et al., on Sep. 18, 2003, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. In a distributed PCE architecture, the visibility needed to compute paths is extended between adjacent domains so that PCEs may cooperate to compute paths across multiple domains by exchanging virtual shortest path trees (VSPTs) while preserving confidentiality across domains (e.g., when applicable to ASes).
Occasionally, a head-end LSR or node will have multiple TE-LSPs into a particular “remote” domain (e.g., area or level) outside of its own “local” domain. These inter-domain TE-LSPs may terminate at either a single tail-end LSR or node of the remote domain, or at different tail-end nodes within the same remote domain, depending upon their initial setup. Knowledge of nodes or prefixes contained within the remote domain of the tail-end node can be acquired, e.g., via static or policy-based routing, which generally requires manual configuration by a system administrator with prior knowledge of the network topology. Other methods for obtaining this “reachability information” include the dynamic methods described in previously incorporated application Ser. Nos. 11/001,349 and 11/001,459, using various protocol extensions to transmit the information. A known limitation of multiple inter-domain TE-LSPs lies in the inability to efficiently select (e.g., at a head-end node in the local domain) which particular TE-LSP to use when attempting to reach a particular reachable prefix (e.g., in the remote domain), should there be a plurality of TE-LSPs available to reach a particular prefix. Current methods to select a particular TE-LSP involve the use of static or policy-based routing (manual configuration), which can be cumbersome and limited in their applicability, and in some cases (e.g., misconfiguration) can be the cause of network failure.